This is an academic article that discusses changes in Finnish legislation in light of the Päivi Räsänen judgment.
This is also available in Finnish.
On what grounds can a person be convicted of a crime in Finland? The obvious answer is that a person is convicted on the grounds of violating Finnish law. The deeper question, however, is this: on what basis does Finnish law itself stand?
On March 26th 2026, the Supreme Court of Finland handed down a ruling against Päivi Räsänen, a medical doctor and member of parliament, and Juhana Pohjola, a theologian and bishop in the Missionary Diocese, for incitement against a group of people1. The Supreme Court reached this ruling through its interpretation of Finnish law. Yet both the District Court and the Court of Appeal had previously acquitted the defendants under that same law. The ruling centered on a pamphlet Räsänen originally published in 2004 through the Finnish Luther Foundation, “Male and Female He Created Them – How Homosexual Relationships Challenge the Christian View of Humanity,” the passage in which homosexuality is described as a psychosexual developmental disorder. She later reposted the text on Facebook in 2019 and again on her personal website in 2020.
The question is: on what basis does Finnish law itself stand?
Räsänen was not punished for her Romans 1:24–26 tweet, which was the original basis for the charges:
“Therefore, God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones.”
In the end, Räsänen was not convicted for posting such biblical texts, but rather for the broader interpretation of them. In light of prevailing medical understanding, the terminology employed was considered offensive to homosexuals. It is startling to note how quickly Finnish law and its interpreters have made a complete U-turn on this issue.
A brief history of Finnish Law
“If someone engages in sexual immorality with another person of the same sex, both shall be punished with imprisonment for up to two years.”
So reads a Finnish law enacted in 1894. The law effectively criminalized all sexual activity outside marriage and apart from procreation. Between 1894 and 1971, 1,023 men and 51 women were convicted in Finland for homosexual acts2. In 1951 alone, as many as 87 men were sentenced to prison for engaging in sexual acts with a person of the same sex. That law was repealed in 1971. After that, homosexuality was classified as a mental disorder until 1981, and encouraging it remained a criminal offense until 1999.
It is startling to note how quickly Finnish law and its interpreters have made a complete U-turn on this issue.
While as recently as 1970 the practice of homosexuality was a criminal offense, by 2026 it is not only legal, but even describing it as a deviation is considered defamatory and thus incitement against a group of people. Distributing material that portrays homosexuality as disordered may, under current legal interpretation, be considered punishable. This interpretation rests in part on a statement by the Supreme Court:
“In light of current medical understanding, the claim that homosexuality is a disorder of psychosexual development is an incorrect assertion and can be considered offensive to homosexuals.”
This shift in legal reasoning reflects a deeper change in the foundations of Finnish Law. The Law of Moses had a significant influence on the political theology and legislation of Sweden-Finland from the 13th century until the early 20th century, including matters of sexual ethics3. Although in 1734 the Law of Moses as such ceased to be part of criminal law, its influence did not end there. As Associate Professor Niko Huttunen observes:
“The 1734 Act clearly stated in its preamble that all laws must be based on God’s law, even though God has left the drafting of specific laws to human reason.”4
Although Swedish-Finnish culture was influenced by thinkers such as Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770–1831), among others, the Deuteronomistic foundation (i.e., the application of the Mosaic Law from the Book of Deuteronomy) did not disappear from legislation in the 19th century. It can be seen as the prevailing underlying assumption right up until World War II. In addition, according to the Lutheran two-kingdoms doctrine, the state was understood to support the mission of the church. This has been evident in the social weekly calendar, the observance of Christian holidays, and criminal legislation.
This two-kingdom doctrinal view of the state has also been reflected in legislation concerning sexual ethics. In earlier legislation from the Swedish era, same-sex sexual relations were equated with bestiality. The legal foundations of sexual legislation in Swedish-ruled Finland were thus heavily rooted in the teachings of the Torah. These included laws concerning adultery. Extramarital relations were criminalized as early as the 16th century, and, citing the Law of Moses, they were punishable by death from 1608 onward. As University of Turku researcher, Juha Pekka Torokainen, summarizes: “For example, in condemning fornication, one had to follow God’s word as it is presented in the Bible.”5 Under the Criminal Code revised in 1889, all sexual activity outside marriage remained punishable. Sexual relations between unmarried individuals were criminalized until 1926, and adultery remained a punishable offense until 1948.
By contrast, in 2017 Finland legalized same-sex marriage. In March 2026, the newspaper Keskisuomalainen reported on a new citizens’ petition seeking recognition for a third gender.
The fact that sexual relationships between two people of the same sex are becoming increasingly accepted in our society is likely a result of the breakdown of the traditional ideals of both sex and marriage, which were once limited to sex between two people of the opposite sex within marriage. When sex before marriage or sex during marriage with someone other than one’s spouse is acceptable—or at least occurs frequently—it is difficult to condemn sexual relationships between two people of the same sex as immoral. Such a position risks appearing inconsistent.
In today’s Finnish society—including its legislation—there is an increasing reluctance to appeal to natural law or divine authority.6 Faith and religion must be kept separate from education, politics, and legislation. The question is: if the law of creation or the moral law of God or Moses do not form the basis of our laws, what, then, serves as the foundation?
On what should our laws be based?
This is by no means a new issue. Increasingly, there is pressure to make personal experience the foundation of legislation. This reflects a broader cultural and ideological shift. Carl Trueman, a professor of church history, describes this as “expressive individualism,” an approach that centers on the individual and prioritizes self-realization.7 Martti Nissinen, a professor of Old Testament studies at the University of Helsinki, and Archbishop Tapio Luoma have recently advocated for a change in church law. Encounters with people who hold different views on sexuality have shaped their positions in a more liberal direction.8 The individual’s inner experience becomes the primary authority for understanding sexual reality.
The term “psychosexual developmental disorder” itself, which was viewed as derogatory when used by Räsänen, is still found in Finland’s current classification of diseases.
The significance of the latest research is also often cited as the most important argument for the basis of our laws. However, this presents a difficulty, because scientific conclusions often change over time. As recently as 1980, a person who desired or engaged in sex with someone of the same sex was classified as having an illness.9 A telling example comes from psychiatrist and psychotherapist Hannu Säävälä:
“I feel a flush of shame when considering how, for instance within psychiatry, it has come to pass that someone who enjoys aggressive forms of sexual expressions with their partner in the bedroom has been subject to diagnostic labels.”10
Over the decades, medical arguments have shaped our understanding of the causes of homosexuality. Yet there remains ongoing debate about its causes. While researchers have searched for a so-called “homo-gene,” none has yet been found.11 The phenomenon is, in fact, explained as the sum of several different factors. The term “psychosexual developmental disorder” itself, which was viewed as derogatory when used by Räsänen, is still found in Finland’s current classification of diseases, but whatever explanatory power that term may have—even partial—for the phenomenon of homosexuality, public discussion of it may now, in certain contexts, be considered unlawful. In light of current developments and recent court rulings, church staff, doctors, and healthcare professionals are certainly more cautious than ever about what they say and on what grounds. The pressure to self-censor is growing.
The fact that the Supreme Court declares the prevailing medical consensus at a given moment to be the only legitimate opinion may appear commendable, but the reality is that it also may appear commendable, but it may also constrain open scientific inquiry. Science should be a self-correcting system in which new hypotheses challenge old ones and in which there is open discussion about which explanatory model best accounts for all available data. However, if certain interpretations are excluded from the discussion under threat of criminal prosecution, this has serious consequences.
The Pohjola and Räsänen case and the ensuing debate, which continues to this day, highlights with particular clarity that freedom of speech and freedom of religion, faith and science, the underlying moral foundation, and the interpretation and application of the law cannot be separated from one another. Such a division is not sustainable.
Natural Law and the Law of Moses
Christians are called to exercise judgment. Such judgment involves careful moral evaluation.12 However, when evaluating or judging, one must apply the same standards and criteria to others as to oneself (e.g., Matt. 7:1–5; 1 Cor. 5:1–13; James 2:1). The question is: Are we evaluating correctly, and by what criteria?
In biblical-theological discourse, there has been much debate regarding the relationship between the Law of Moses—as summarized in the Ten Commandments—and the natural law derived from creation. In my own research, I (Mikko) have argued that in the context of the first chapter of Romans referred to by Räsänen, Paul draws upon the history of the people of Israel as found in the Jewish Scriptures, as well as on creation theology, in defining the nature of idolatry.13 He then applies that natural order of creation and the Law of Moses to the pagan society of his own time. Paul writes:
The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world, God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened (Rom. 1:18–21).
Later, Paul describes same-sex sexual activity as shameful and unnatural passions (Rom. 1:26–27). Some biblical scholars have argued that this refers solely to pederasty as it existed in the first century, in which an older and stronger man sexually exploits a younger and weaker partner.14 In addition, some argue that the text cannot be applied to mutual romantic relationships between two people of the same sex that exist in today’s society, and that Paul does not condemn such relationships.15 In addition, some argue that modern understanding surpasses Paul’s.
Such interpretations have their problems. First, in his Epistle to the Romans, Paul does not distinguish between men as strong and weak, or adults and children, but rather between two men (Greek: ἄρσενες ἐν ἄρσεσιν, “men with men”) who are “inflamed with one another.”16 Second, Paul also describes sexual relationships between two women as shameful and contrary to nature. Third, within the broader context, Paul invokes both Jewish conceptions of idolatry and the creation order in describing idolatry arising from what is contrary to nature as the underlying cause of same-sex sexual relations.17 Fourth, within such theological argumentation, loving sexual relations are construed as being grounded solely in the mutual consent of the participating parties. In biblical ethics, however, love cannot be separated from the law of God, whether in the Old Testament (Lev 19:18; Deut 6:5) or in the New Testament (Matt 22:37–39). The commandment “You shall not commit adultery” is itself an expression of love. Accordingly, marriage is understood—on the basis of both the creation account and the Mosaic law—as a union between one man and one woman.
Paul thus appeals to both the Jewish Scriptures and the natural law in claiming that same-sex sexual relations are shameful and contrary to nature. For Paul, conduct that is contrary to natural law constitutes a violation of the law and is therefore shameful, since natural law is an objective moral order established by God and woven into the very structure of creation.18 Natural law reflects the character of God. Consequently, the Mosaic moral law likewise bears witness both to God’s character and to the structure of creation. In this way, the law is also applicable to the sexual ethics of his own time.
The Supreme Court’s attempt to draw a line between religious freedom and freedom of speech regarding the question of whether homosexuality is natural or unnatural raises serious concerns in light of Pauline theology. In light of the current ruling, it appears that Christians have the right, invoking religious freedom, to cite Paul’s texts and argue on that basis that homosexuality is unnatural. This is religious freedom. But if those same people believe what Paul says—that these matters fall within the scope of God’s general revelation and are evident to anyone who observes God’s works of creation (even without reference to Paul or the Bible)—and argue in favour of this by appealing, for example, to medicine —they may well be classified as criminals. Is our freedom of religion becoming merely a freedom to quote Scripture, but not the freedom to believe what it teaches? When both the Supreme Court and Paul tell us what is natural regarding the issue of homosexuality, which one should we believe? Perhaps, unintentionally, our judges are compelled to assume the role of theologians and to act as arbiters of natural law. The Supreme Court’s decision may thus be interpreted as an attempt to distinguish between God’s general and specific revelation. Such a distinction, however, is ultimately untenable.
Would this imply a return to an Old Testament theocracy, in which criminal law would be revised in accordance with Deuteronomy? Not exactly. We live in the era of the New Covenant.
What comes next?
Many have, with good reason, called for a change to the incitement clause in Finnish law. However, the problems in our society run even deeper than the emerging restrictions on free speech. Departing from the natural order established by the Creator, as summarized in the Ten Commandments, always leads to disorder and chaos, in which a society cannot thrive.19 What if those who have been given the power and responsibility to enact Finland’s laws were to return to that old Western and Christian tradition, which acknowledges a judge and king higher than human order, and according to which the laws of the land must be based on natural law as summarized in the Ten Commandments?20 It is precisely upon this foundation that the long history of our country (and of Western civilization as a whole) rests.21 Would this imply a return to an Old Testament theocracy, in which criminal law would be revised in accordance with Deuteronomy? Not exactly. We live in the era of the New Covenant. Neither the Church nor the society surrounding it is any longer subject to the Mosaic Covenant. The Church is subject to the New Covenant (2 Cor. 3–4). We must not return to the shadows of the Mosaic Covenant’s sacrificial and ceremonial laws. Their purpose was to point to Christ. The law, by contrast, is valid only insofar as it reflects natural law.22 The moral foundation of the covenant, however, is cast in the eternal character of God and inscribed on the heart of man, who is made in God’s image (Rom. 1:19–32; 2:12–16), and thus the essence of the moral law never changes. Laws in every age must be enacted on this foundation.
New (time-honoured) laws would uphold the union between a man and a woman and the children born of that union—families are the lifeblood of a healthy and thriving society. Only by encouraging faithful marriage between one man and one woman can we provide a natural antidote to the low birth rate and prevent the serious economic challenges that result from it. The figures concerning increasing rates of divorce and cohabitation breakdown, the number of abortions, the loneliness of childless and unmarried individuals, declining fertility, and the overall reliance of Finnish society on debt do not make for encouraging reading. The legacy of the cultural changes of the 1960s continues to shape Finnish society in profound ways.23
Legislative changes, of course, do not resolve the fundamental and sobering reality that every journey—whether within marriage, outside of it, or in same-sex relationships—ultimately ends in death, often preceded by illness. Nor do they eliminate the problem that everyone who contemplates natural law and the Ten Commandments and perceives their goodness and beauty comes to the painful realization that they themselves are, in fact, violators of those laws—if not in their actions, then at least in their thoughts. Furthermore, as history teaches us, even the existence of states and nations is not guaranteed from one century to the next.
What, then, is the solution to this existential crisis? The answer, from a Christian perspective, is Jesus Christ, the God-man. He did not come to abolish the law of God, but to fulfil it (Matt. 5:17). He was unjustly condemned on behalf of all those who confess that they have transgressed God’s law and place their trust in him. God shows mercy to the transgressor, and Christ, through the Holy Spirit, liberates those under the sentence of sin and death, bringing them into deep communion and life with himself, and into the hope of the reality of the resurrection, in which lawlessness no longer prevails. For this reason, in accordance with a centuries-old tradition, public holidays at Easter are observed in Finnish society: one receives wages, yet is given rest.
The fact that marriage between a man and a woman functions as a typological representation of the eternal and faithful covenant of love between Christ and his Church (Eph. 5:21–32), extending beyond the boundaries of death into the new creation, lends this discussion far-reaching significance. Those outside this covenant remain under judgment, subject to judgment by the supreme judge, whom the Father has raised from the dead—he who shows no partiality in judgment and who judges according to God’s eternal and righteous law.
As Scripture says, “Let those who have ears hear.”
